It’s had the feel of a strange year. A good point was at the C40 meeting in Mexico City, where four major world cities affirmed that they would ban diesel engines in their boundaries. A low point was in Canada where we have experienced one of the warmest summers in history. And satellite photography reaffirms that the polar ice is melting at a much faster rate than expected.

In the face of that kind of evidence, our Provincial approach to climate change and to adapting to 21st century concerns about the environment appear to be at odds.In Metro Vancouver the Port is discussing adding a new terminal on the sensitive migratory flyway habitat, one of the few in the world. There is also a curiously jumbo retail megamall destination built on class one farmland on the delta river floodplain. And we are going for the triple play with the building of a ten lane bridge replacing the Massey tunnel on the same arable soils, ostensibly to reduce idling and maybe to let larger vessels go up the Fraser River.

Ian Bailey writing in the Globe and Mail reports on a study for the Pembina Institute, Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions and Clean Energy Canada that puts British Columbia in the “fail” category: “The analysis of British Columbia’s recently released Climate Leadership Plan says carbon pollution from natural gas, industry and utilities, transport and buildings will hit 66 megatonnes in 2050, far more than the province’s legislated target of 12.6 megatonnes. The assessment, conducted by energy and environment consultants at Navius Research, said growing carbon pollution from the liquefied natural gas sector – assuming it comes online – and upstream shale-gas operations will constitute the largest contributor to the size of the gap with carbon pollution from LNG and natural gas doubling by 2025″.

That means that the current Provincial government will not make its goal of reducing emissions by 33% below 2007 levels by 2020. The local associate director of the Pembina Institute stated “The province is increasingly trumpeting its climate leadership but we’re not on track, and we’re going in the wrong direction from a climate and carbon pollution perspective.”

The Province’s response has been surprising, including statements that the Province has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions,and that there will be no carbon tax increase until the other provinces do it as well.

Somehow we have singlemindly looked at industry and shipping driving the economy, and forgotten that the service industry is becoming a larger component. For some reason the Province’s thinking is 20th century industry based, and not responsive to climate change indicators or the need for flexibility and adaptability as shown in Alberta. With five months left to a Provincial election, innovative thinking and ownership is needed. Our future may depend on it.

Now no one is going to argue with the safety of our first responders who do an amazing and selfless job. And Minster Stone notes: “I want to thank Delta fire and emergency Chief Dan Copeland, Delta Chief of police Neil Dubord and all Delta first responders for the work they do, day in and day out, as they deal with emergency situations at the George Massey Tunnel.

But wait for it-then Minister Stone reiterates his rationale why a 10 lane 3.5 billion dollar bridge needs to be built on agricultural class 1 farmland floodplain at this location-and he’s expanding that safety card. “The 10-lane bridge will be safer for motorists, safer and more accessible for first responders, and safer in the event of an earthquake.Their recent report to council highlights one of the main reasons we’re moving ahead with the replacement of the tunnel – the safety of the travelling public who use this crossing every day. The safety of motorists on our highways is my ministry’s number one priority, and it’s clear that a new bridge to replace the tunnel will improve safety for the 80,000 motorists who travel this corridor.”

And as a salvo to all the other mayors and Metro Vancouver and pretty much everyone that is questioning the location and rationale for this multi-billion dollar bridge at this location, the Minister responds: “The new bridge will be built to modern seismic standards to provide a lifeline connection across the Fraser River, replacing the seismically vulnerable tunnel. As well, Highway 99 will be upgraded to modern engineering standards to increase safety for drivers and for communities along the route. This includes longer merge lanes, wider travel lanes, improved sightlines and increased vertical clearances at overpasses”.

Just in case there is any doubt, the Province is now saying that twinning the tunnel would be more expensive than building the new bridge. So there is a new reason to add to the others about why a less intrusive approach is not being taken. Apparently a new tunnel would also have more detrimental environmental consequences on land and the Fraser River too.

This multi billion dollar bridge is the Provincially driven train that no reason or rationale from the region or the region’s mayors can stop. The project commences in 2017.

How can we work together to put an end to the 1980’s kind of thinking that views more cars, bigger highways and sprawling development as progress?

In Delta we are already seeing the results – and costs – of climate change as sea level rises and storm surges challenge the dike system that protects our low-lying community. What do we gain if we save a few minutes on our travels into Richmond or Vancouver if we contribute to increasing air pollution, loss of farmland and global warming?

Panelists Harold Steves (Richmond City counsellor and “father of the ALR”), Susan Jones (respected environmental advocate) and Andrew Martin (UBC School of Community & Social Planning) will examine the forces behind the project and the alternatives to this multi-billion dollar mega-development.

The panel presentations will be followed by an open community discussion on alternatives and actions.

Douglas Massey, the son of George Massey the MLA that championed the design and development of the Massey Tunnel which opened in 1959 has weighed in to the Delta Optimist about the proposed Massey Bridge replacement. Massey responds to comments that the tunnel is not ecologically prudent, warranting its removal.

“The George Massey Tunnel was built below the riverbed and does not interfere in the migration of salmon or other fish species, nor does it interfere in the flight path of birds. Should we not be more concerned about the environmental effects of a high level bridge, hundreds of feet in the air, combined with the new overhead high voltage transmission lines (that presently go under the river bed in the tunnel)? Would this not result in more bird kill?

Or with the proposal to remove the George Massey Tunnel and to dredge the riverbed deeper to make the Fraser Surrey Docks a viable operation at taxpayers’ expense? What effect will this increased depth have on migrating salmon or sturgeon who live in the riverbed? What effect would the increased number of ships navigating the river and the increased industrialization have on the foreshores and existing dikes and the habitat on the wetland marshes and would recreational kayaking still be viable?”

While Douglas Massey advocates for the right fit for the environment, another letter writer to the Optimist worries about the tolled bridge as being expensive for lower wage workers, and wonders if the tunnel could continue in operation as an HOV/transit-dedicated route “for those of us who are required to travel to Vancouver every day”.

In the “we just hoped this would go away” department, the Province’s ten lane bridge replacing the Massey Tunnel now has a short list of firms eager to spend their man years building it.

The bridge is to replace the Massey Tunnel for a bunch of reasons that keeps changing like the seasons. First we were told the tunnel was redundant because of the deeper drafts of ocean going ships that needed to access the reaches of the Fraser River to the east. Then we heard that the Massey Tunnel would fall apart in an earthquake and was unsound, a claim refuted by the son of George Massey who had championed the creation of the tunnel. The latest reason and the one I enjoy the most, is that the bridge will cut pollution by decreasing the idling times of vehicles waiting to go through the tunnel. There has been no comment from the Province about what happens when all that traffic going northbound hits the Oak Street Bridge, and whether the peak hour tunnel congestion idling might will just transfer to another place.

But onward to the short list of bridge builders. As reported by Business in Vancouver three consortiums have come forward to bid on this 3.5 billion dollar bridge, including a group called Pacific Skyway Partners which includes SNC-Lavalin Capital Inc., Fluor Canada Ltd. and John Laing Investment Ltd.

As stated by Business in Vancouver “The World Bank debarred SNC-Lavalin Inc. and more than 100 of its affiliated companies in April 2013 for 10 years over bribery related to the World Bank-funded Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project in Bangladesh and a power project in Cambodia. SNC-Lavalin Inc. is a subsidiary of SNC-Lavalin Group, and, at the time, represented more than 60% of its business…SNC-Lavalin is facing several criminal and civil court actions inside and outside Canada. A federal preliminary court hearing about corruption charges related to its contracts in Libya is scheduled for September 2018.”

Business in Vancouver also reports that Gwyn Morgan, who was chair of SNC-Lavalin and just retired advised Premier Christy Clark when she won the BC Liberal leadership in 2011. Clark named him to chair the Industry Training Authority Crown corporation in 2014. SNC-Lavalin was the firm that did the design build of the Evergreen Line SkyTrain extension, and also is building a BC Hydro generating station close to Campbell River.

The other two consortiums are Gateway Mobility Solutions and Lower Mainland Connectors, and their involved companies can be found on the Business in Vancouver link. This new ten lane bridge should have its ribbon cutting opening in 2022, reducing idling on either side of the bridge.

It is in the “weird stuff that won’t go away” file-as part of the trinity of the twentieth century approach to things, suburban Delta is home to the huge Port Metro Vancouver proposed expansion onto Class 1 farmland, the building of a mega mall again on Class 1 farmland, and just to round out the trio-a new bridge replacing the handy Massey Tunnel, again taking away farmland for the approaches.

Price Tags has discussed the Massey Bridge at length. There has been some surprise that this bridge is being located again on the sensitive river floodplain, and in an area which has not been identified for increased density by Metro Vancouver.Three months ago Metro Vancouver mayors rejected the project, because of environmental concerns and fears about the lack of a rigorous assessment process. The Mayor of Delta was the holdout, favouring the 3.5 billion dollar ten lane bridge that would take seven years to build, and come directly into that community.

And the reason for the bridge instead of the twinning of the tunnel keeps changing. Originally we were told the tunnel needed to be replaced to allow for the draft of ocean-going ships to access docks upriver on the Fraser. Then people in the region were told that the Massey Tunnel might collapse in an earthquake. After a solid rebuttal from Doug Massey, son of George Massey for whom the tunnel is named, the reason for the new bridge changed again-now it is to stop bottlenecking traffic.

Thankfully the City of Richmond’s Transportation Department produced a report this week that lays out a number of concerns about the George Massey Tunnel replacement project. As reported in the Richmond News, City Engineer Victor Wei ‘s report states

“there are significant gaps in the assessment of the impacts of the project, omissions of technical analysis as well as unsubstantiated claims of predicted project benefits.”

Sure vehicles will get over the Fraser River quicker, but what happens then? As Mr. Wei noted that the Provincial government “justsee the Highway 99 corridor. They don’t seem to care about anything else”.

That is what others have been thinking too. There is little information on how traffic interchanges are being planned, nor what happens when all that free-flowing traffic gets to the four lane Oak Street Bridge. Lastly, Wei notes that the” Ministry has given varying forecasts of traffic for the new bridge. The report states the higher traffic volumes of 115,000 vehicles per day by 2045 are used to justify the need for a new bridge. Meanwhile the bridge can only expect to see about 84,000 vehicles per day by that time, if it is tolled (which it will be). “

The CBC notes that the City of Richmond is forwarding their report to the BC Environmental Assessment Office for review, at the same time as a series of open houses are being held regarding the proposed bridge. The Mayor of Richmond remarked that other cost-effective changes, such as public transit, banning semi-trailer trucks on the bridge at peak times, and (surprise!) building a second tunnel to ease congestion have not been thoughtfully considered.

If you want to have your say about this bridge proposal, there is one more open house scheduled for today. You can find information here from the Environmental Assessment Office of the Provincial Government on how to attend or how to write to get your views known. We need to approach this issue in a sustainable way as if agricultural land, public transportation mobility and the future of our region truly matters.

Frank Ducote added this comment to the post on the Arbutus Greenway – but it’s worth pulling out to continue the conversation on its own post:

… vehicular traffic on the main North Shore routes has gotten ridiculously congested – if not exactly gridlocked – an increasingly large percentage of the day. (Marine Drive, Taylor Way, both bridges, Highway 1, Keith Road, Capilano Road, etc.) The directional split on the Second Narrows Bridge, for example, went from about 70%/30% to almost 50%/50% in just a few years, making the so-called reverse commute very painful rather than easy. I hope new changes at the north end of the Second Narrows will improve matters there.

Contrary to his point, though, it isn’t additional traffic caused by residential population development on the North Shore, which is actually quite modest and incremental. I’d hazard to say it is mostly generated by explosive development along the entire Sea to Sky Highway corridor since that facility was widened for the 2010 Olympics.

Living in Squamish and commuting to Metro is now about as common as living in the Fraser Valley and doing so. That, plus the fact that almost all freight is carried by truck and construction workers drive vans and trucks, both of which originate south of Burrard Inlet and probably even south of the Fraser.

Oh, how I wish that railway infrastructure was selected for the Sea to Sky route rather than yet more Motordom!

There’s a critical point here: the Province has spent billions on this corridor – Sea-to-Sky, Highway 1, Port Mann, interchange upgrades connected to Second Narrows, along with smaller road and bridge widenings.

For that money and those political commitments, couldn’t the public reasonably expect that congestion would be lessened? Has it been? And if it’s worse, how could that have happened?

What lessons does that mean for the future of the North Shore and, to the south, with the massive expansion of the Massey crossing and Highway 99, growth on the Fraser Delta? The Province, without ever articulating a complete vision, has undertaken a region-shaping network of highways and some of the biggest bridges on the continent. There is no reason to think they will stop.

And yet, if it is already failing to deliver the minimum expected – less congestion – we need to know why and what the alternatives are.

A provincial government traffic assessment predicts a congestion nightmare on the Alex Fraser Bridge if a George Massey Tunnel bridge replacement is tolled and pushes drivers to free alternatives.

While the documents predict traffic will improve on the new tolled crossing, the spillover from drivers avoiding the toll will result in tens of thousands more vehicles using the Alex Fraser Bridge in the near future.

“If it looks bad today it will be way worse in the future,” said Langley City Coun. Nathan Pachal. “That means more congestion, more delays to get on the bridge, and more variability on commute times.”

The assessment measures the current traffic on the Alex Fraser Bridge at 107,000 vehicles a day. If no new bridge is built, it’s estimated the growth in the region will push the traffic to 120,000 vehicles a day in 2045.

But with a new, $3.5-billion Massey Bridge in place, the load on the Alex Fraser Bridge would increase to 140,000 cars a day – a 30 per cent increase compared to today.

This is “primarily because of off-peak diversion from the tolled facility to the untolled facility,” the report says.

The B.C. Trucking Association says the Alex Fraser Bridge is already at 90 per cent, and increasing traffic that much more would put it way over capacity.

“If it rises by 30 per cent we’ll be over capacity. Traffic will be extremely slow and if anything happens on the bridge we’re coming to a standstill,” said the association’s Louise Yako.

This is a similar dynamic to what surprised highway planners on the Port Mann Bridge: rather than paying the $3.15 toll to cross the Port Mann Bridge, many drivers opted for the free alternative of the Pattullo Bridge.

That’s one factor that has caused the bridge to report stunning losses: $82.5 million in the fiscal year of 2015-16, according to the Transportation Investment Corporation, which is a crown corporation that operates the span. …

The traffic assessment also pointed out that the Oak Street Bridge traffic has reduced to 2005 levels after commuters were given the option of the parallel Canada Line.

“Since commuters have adjusted to the introduction of the Canada Line, vehicle volumes have adjusted to the introduction of the Canada Line, vehicle volumes on the Oak Street Bridge have been declining year over year, particularly on weekdays,” the report says.

Pachal called a decision to spend $3.5-billion on a bridge that may not recoup its construction cost through tolls “insane.”

He said a plan to charge drivers for the roads they use is the only way to reduce congestion across the board.

“The region’s been calling for a comprehensive road pricing strategy,” he said. “You can’t build your way out of congestion – that’s been shown in city after city in the world.”

And increasing public transit as proposed by Metro Vancouver’s mayors to get people out of their cars should be the first option, he said.

“For $3.5 billion, we get one bridge, or half of the mayors’ transit plan, and I know what I would go for if I had the choice,” he said.

Some observations:

Good for CTV News for covering this. Why not others – and more importantly, why is Massey not being discussed in the context of its regional impacts? Massey is not a congestion issue; it’s a regional growth issue – and the kind of region we want to build.

MOTI continues with the usual ‘predict and provide’ forecasts. ‘We had this kind of growth in the past; we will predict it will continue on the same path in the future. Therefore, we must build more of what caused the growth in the first place.’

‘Please ignore that we were wrong about Port Mann – and that factors like tolling are more important than we ever anticipated.’

‘More than that, please ignore the seven- and eight-figure annual deficits on just one of our projects alone. Above all, do not compare us to TransLink or suggest that there should be a referendum (and a questioning of our competence) on such projects as Massey.’

Did MOTI commission any studies on what changing behaviours and technologies are likely to do to their forecasts?

Did MOTI commission any studies on what level of expanded transit might do to the need for a 10-lane bridge as a replacement for Massey? And once built, will Massey be seen to make transit an unnecessary expenditure, unlikely to serve the kind of car-dependent growth that Massey itself will generate?

Is MOTI really suggesting that the Oak Street Bridge will not see an increase in congestion as a consequence of Massey and a widening of Highway 99? Do they have any plans for an expanded Oak Street or additional bridges to deal with the growth they will generate?

What do they anticipate will happen to the traffic once it reaches Vancouver?

Why is not any of this part of the review they’re currently conducting?

Finally, why Nathan Pachal, a recently-elected councillor in the City of Langley, about the only one doing the research and getting it to the media?

The environmental assessment for the proposed George Massey Tunnel replacement bridge is currently in progress. 145 pages of the material submitted by the province for the environmental assessment deals with traffic.

Here’s some facts:

Average traffic volumes across the George Massey Tunnel and Alex Fraser Bridge since 2005. Select table to enlarge.

Traffic volume through the Massey Tunnel has been declining over the last decade. There was less traffic going through the Massey Tunnel in 2014 on average than in 2003.

The Ministry of Transportation’s “independent” traffic model shows that a tolled crossing would drop traffic to a level not seen since the 1980s. TransLink numbers show an even stepper decline in traffic.

The Alex Fraser Bridge has seen an increase in traffic. If the provincial government was serious about reducing congestion, it would toll all river crossings to reduce congestion, using the revenue to invent in keeping the current road network in a state of good repair, and investing the remainder into transit and the regional transportation vision.

If the province invested the money it spent on the Port Mann Bridge and soon-to-be George Massey Bridge instead on the regional transportation vision, we would have world-leading bus service and rail rapid transit along Broadway, King George, 104th Avenue, and Fraser Highway to Langley today.

The environmental review process for the $3.5 billion George Massey tunnel replacement project is now officially underway. The BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) has scheduled public open houses , starting in mid-August as part of a 60-day public comment period. The first open house takes place in Delta August 17, followed by one in Richmond September 13 and another open house in Delta September 14. …

The majority of Richmond city council is opposed to the project and wants to keep the tunnel. Most mayors with Metro Vancouver are also opposed to the project.

Delta Mayor Louise Jackson is among the only mayors on Metro Vancouver who supports the tunnel’s replacement. …

Vancouver’s business community is generally in favour of the project. The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade says the Highway 99 south corridor is “one of the most important highway corridors in British Columbia.” Highway 99 south connects the Lower Mainland to the U.S. border, BC Ferries’ Tsawwassen terminal and the Deltaport container terminal. …

According to the B.C. government, the new 10-lane bridge would shave 30 minutes off the commute of those who currently use the tunnel every day to get in and out of Vancouver.

.

Is there really any doubt that this review will approve the bridge with perhaps some cautionary notes?

More valuable would be a review of the bridge’s rationale, since it came basically from nowhere – certainly not in any plan, regional or provincial.

And then: what will be the impacts on regional transportation as a whole (not just the Highway 99 corridor) and the likely land-use impacts. (Bridges have region-shaping consequences: The Oak Street Bridge construction in 1957 led, two years later, to the rezoning of Richmond as a bedroom suburb of Vancouver. The first Port Mann Bridge in 1964 had even greater impacts on Surrey.)

Ultimately, the most important question is this: what is the Province’s vision for Metro Vancouver? Is the Fraser Delta to be industrialized? What energy projects will be facilitated? How is it expected that the Port will expand?

Is the transportation network for the region still to be car- and truck-dominated, with the minimum transit system the region can fund through referendum?

What are the next projects anticipated by the Ministry? Once Oak Street is further congested, will it be widened or replaced? Will there be another bridge at Boundary Road? Will tunnels be designed to handle the congestion on the arterials in Vancouver. (And if you think cross-city tunnels are unrealistic, check out Brisbane.)

Though the Massey will be one of the most gigantic bridges to be constructed in North America, is it only one piece of a more extensive road network for the region to handle the next million – one that will keep us car-dependent and cost many times more than the transit system that is one of the foundations of the regional plan?

The critical questions that must be addressed in any review of the Massey replacement are the ones that won’t even be asked.

Three business reps write an op-ed in support of the Massey Bridge in The Sun:

One their reasons:

In its own studies, Metro Vancouver estimates our population will grow by more than one million new residents by the year 2041. With that in mind, we need to invest in a long-term solution that prepares us for this explosive growth over the next two decades. If we want to be a world-class region, we need to invest in world-class infrastructure.

Growth, in other words, will be massively directed south of the Fraser, on to the agricultural lands of what will become an industrialized delta.

Our organizations share Metro Vancouver’s concerns for environmental protection and sustainable growth. However, given our involvement in the planning for this project over the last four years, we are confident this project falls in line with Metro Vancouver’s own Regional Growth Strategy.

Well, no it doesn’t. It’s not in the regional plan (indeed it goes against the very principle of a compact urban region) and it wasn’t even in any provincial plan (a previous transportation minister had even ruled it out.)

And here it is-Amy Schmitt in this article on Streetsblog Network describes the death of the big infrastructure project. Why? Because most of the existing infrastructure systems have been built and need little expanding-and in some cases, could be shrunk.

With analogies to the railroads and the interstate highways of the 19th and 20th centuries where usage is shrinking, Schmitt sees new infrastructure occurring for surface transport such as High Speed Rail and urban transit projects, and for the provision of water and energy. New systems such as internet and wireless, uber and autonomous vehicles redeploy existing technologies, and readapt them.

So what of building a new tolled ten lane Massey Bridge across the Fraser River to move cars onto fewer lanes of highway on either side?

So far, Tsawwassen First Nation has had a pass on the Mills; it’s been too uncomfortable for most to criticize, given past relations and the need to promote economic opportunity. But the contradiction between word and deed is too glaring to ignore for much longer, given the precedent it sets.

They can say this:

Indigenous peoples are caretakers of Mother Earth and realize and respect her gifts of water, air and fire. First Nations peoples’ have a special relationship with the earth and all living things in it. This relationship is based on a profound spiritual connection to Mother Earth that guided indigenous peoples to practice reverence, humility and reciprocity.

It is also based on the subsistence needs and values extending back thousands of years. Hunting, gathering, and fishing to secure food includes harvesting food for self, family, the elderly, widows, the community, and for ceremonial purposes. Everything is taken and used with the understanding that we take only what we need, and we must use great care and be aware of how we take and how much of it so that future generations will not be put in peril.

Or do this:

As they say, location is everything. The Tsawwassen site is located far away from much of the population, where population density is nearly absent. It is in a rural/agricultural area with the ocean on one side, First Nation land on the other, and the small suburb of Tsawwassen to the south.

There are also no vital transportation routes to support such large commercial destinations that will likely only offer the same retail choices also found in shopping centres conveniently located elsewhere in the region. It is nowhere near SkyTrain, the area has sub-par bus service, and Highway 17 goes nowhere and is not a major road route except to the ferry terminal and Deltaport.

More importantly, for relatively little economic return, the developments waste a large section of some of the country’s best farmland. Its location and design (think: lots of asphalt) will also further encourage urban sprawl and car use in the region; it completely goes against the region’s aims of density and sustainability.

In March I updated Price Taggers on the latest news from the “all things mega” mall development at Tsawwassen Mills, located on arable farming land and the flood plain east of the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. As you can see in the photo above, this thing is huge.

The Delta Optimist has just published this article when the local paper had a tour of the 1.2 million square foot mall, which will feature 200 stores and 16 anchor tenants. This mall is situated on land controlled by the Tsawwassen First Nation, and is located at the corner of Highway 17 and 52nd Street. The developer is Ivanhoe Cambridge of Oakridge Mall fame, and the intent is to have a “fashion-oriented” centre with a 1,100 seat food court area.

Over 2,000 construction jobs created the mall and 4,500 permanent jobs are anticipated upon mall completion. I spoke to one electrician who said the mall has supplied him with three years of work. Coast Salish art work by many of the Tsawwassen First Nations band members is also being installed.

The mall is based upon CrossIron Mills Mall in Calgary as well as Toronto’s Vaughn Mills. In both of these cases there is not very good transit and the malls are close to large populations. The difference here is that the Metro Vancouver population may just use the internet for their shopping, or drive another twenty minutes to the border to shop in the United States. Will people shop on their way to the ferry? Do you think this mall will be successful?

With a scheduled opening for October 5 planned, I have been watching the Walmart site which is still-well, a pile of sand. Let’s see what four months will bring.

That plan that almost all of the Mayors, 1 Chief, and 1 Director of Metro Vancouver agreed upon? Most voters had no idea what a huge accomplishment it was for 21 municipalities, 1 Treaty First Nation, and Electoral Area A to agree on the transportation infrastructure we needed as a region for the next 10 years – and in what order – just in time for our first transportation plebiscite.

The bad news is, those projects have been delayed ever since. The good news is, that plan is still useful. I’ve heard from a reliable source that The Mayors’ Plan continues to represent Metro Vancouver’s transportation needs to the federal government in recent budget preparations and negotiations. This includes a Broadway subway, LRT south of the Fraser, and 2700 kms of bikeways. My guess is that 11 new rapid bus routes will be the fastest to implement.

Every day, more than 2.7 million trips are taken on Toronto’s transit system. In Montreal, more than 2.2 million are taken on the Metro on an average day, while the Vancouver system sees more than 1.1 million.

[…] Taken together, their daily ridership numbers are higher than the combined populations of eight Canadian provinces and territories.

What’s not in The Mayors’ Plan? A 10 lane bridge to a fertile land that might soon be literally and figuratively below sea level. Let’s hope the federal budget focusses on sustainable transportation.

By way of introduction, in the city’s urban-affairs milieu I am probably best-known for the 1990 book Vanishing Vancouver and its 2012 sequel; I cobble together a living from book royalties, speaking fees, and artwork sales, although I’m mostly occupied now with creating graphic novels since the publication of Toshiko last summer. I was born in Vancouver, lived in San Francisco for a time in the 1970s, and have visited many times and lived in Sydney (not the Nova Scotia one) during the past 35 years. I volunteer on the city’s Heritage Commission and am president of the Vancouver Historical Society.

My wife and I live near Commercial Drive in a poor-quality, century-old house that we rescued from a demolition-minded builder six years ago. The radius of my daily life is about a kilometre, to shopping and services on The Drive and Hastings Street. I work from a 12 x 12 foot room at home using the miracles of telephone and internet to connect with people whom I have little interest in seeing on a daily basis; my conference room is Uprising Bakery at Venables and Commercial.

My forms of transportation are feet, bike (April to October), bus/Skytrain (I love the Compass Card), and the Yaris I share with my wife and use maybe 3 times a week. If I time it right, I can get downtown door-to-door in a half hour on the 135 express bus or by bus/Skytrain, about 10 minutes longer than it takes to cycle.

For the purposes of my guest-editorship of Pricetags, I will have few strong opinions, other than this sort of thing …

What is my role in the city? I feel that I’m a witness with a very long memory, called to testify from time to time.

Provincial budget numbers that show the bridge lost $86 million last year, followed by projected losses of $100 million in each of the next three years, pushing its total debt to $3.68 billion by 2018. The losses are significantly higher than what was predicted in 2012-13, when it was forecast the net loss for 2014-15 would be $28.3 million. …

The Port Mann Bridge is on track, Johnson insisted, and will likely see revenues exceed expenses in another 12 to 15 years. However, that timeline is far longer than what was presented by the Liberals in 2012 when they forecast that tolls would bring in more than $200 million annually and the project would break even within five years.

Since then, revenue projections have been falling, not rising. By early 2014, lower-than-expected traffic estimates prompted TI Corp. to revise its revenue estimates to $144 million for 2014, $159 million in 2015, and $174 million in 2016 — about 20 per cent less than previously anticipated.

And, according to the latest budget numbers, the revenue projections have dropped even further: landing at $122 million last year, and forecast at $128 million in 2015-16, and $137 million in 2016-17. …

Johnson said high borrowing costs and low revenues, as well as the province’s decision to open the new South Fraser Perimeter Road at the same time as Port Mann, likely had an effect on traffic numbers as well as free, untolled crossings such as the Pattullo, which drew vehicles away from the new highway network.

Who could have predicted the opening of the SFPR, much less the existence of free crossings?

VICTORIA — While the B.C. Liberals charge ahead on replacing the George Massey tunnel with a toll bridge on the same financial model as the Port Mann, the latter project has become a chronic money loser, according to the government’s own budget statements.

The fiscal tale of woe is spelled out in the accounts for the Transportation Investment Corporation, the Crown corporation established by the Liberals to oversee the Port Mann and lately ticketed to take on the Massey replacement as well.

When the Liberals launched the TI corporation (as it is known) back in 2009, they envisioned it would be able to put the Port Mann and related infrastructure on a paying basis by next year. …

The main culprit on the loss side is the mounting cost of servicing the $3.3 billion project debt, currently $131 million and climbing. And while the Liberals point to increased tolling revenue on the project as a sign of emerging financial health, the budget projections tell a different story.

Tolls on the Port Mann are scheduled to bring in an additional $26 million over the next three years, an increase of 20 per cent. But debt is projected to grow by $38 million, or 30 per cent, over the same period.

With the main component of expenses growing faster than the sole source of revenues, one doesn’t need a pocket calculator to realize that the tide of red ink can only keep rising.

For the three years starting April 1, the TI corporation is forecast to endure further losses totalling $300 million, which in turn will push the cumulative deficit for the first seven years of operations to just over $700 million.

It’s taken awhile, but new voices are emerging South of the Fraser to critique the justification and take action on the proposed 10-lane Massey Bridge – the ‘Massive Massey.’

.

Stephen Rees reports on a new group: Fraser Voices.

That is the name that a small group, unified its opposition to megabridge Massey Tunnel replacement project chose for itself …

There are two contributions from that group: The first is the GMTRP brief draft prepared by Nicholas Wong – a substantial document that may get some updating and, if it does, will get replaced by later versions over time.

For now here is the first paragraph of the Executive Summary, which should convince you it is worth your time to read the whole thing: the brief deals only with the traffic, seismic, and pricing concerns and thus leaves a whole raft of issues unexamined

The GMTRP has been plagued by contradictory or absent information. In such an environment, it is impossible to form an educated opinion of the project. To explore the systematic nature of the political deception surrounding the bridge proposal, three broad areas were explored: traffic, seismic safety standards, and budgetary concerns.

The conclusion being that removing the GMT is unnecessary and a poor economic choice to alleviate traffic congestion or to address any of the stated project goals. The only advantage to removing the GMT is to allow larger ships up the Fraser River indicating that the tolled crossing is designed as a subsidy for the export industry.

The Province spent $22.2 million on a seismic upgrade on the Massey Tunnel in 2004, announced the tunnel would be twinned in 2006, and announced rapid bus in 2008. Studies were done that justified twinning the tunnel and improving public transit. It was noted that the carrying capacity of the Oak Street Bridge and other bridges was limited and therefore the tunnel should only be six lanes. Rapid Bus would reduce traffic and reduce GHG’s. Richmond Council was opposed to both a No. 8 Road Bridge to Delta and a bridge to Boundary Road in Burnaby because it would do irreparable damage to Richmond East farmland. The Rapid Bus system resolved that problem.

What caused the province to suddenly change from a tunnel with public transit to a bridge without it?

The FOI information from Doug Massey shows a concerted effort was made in 2012 by Fraser Surrey Docks and Port Metro Vancouver and others to have the tunnel removed to accommodate deep draft Panamex supertankers. The BC Government met with them to discuss tunnel removal on Feb 2, 2012, future terminals at VAFFC, Lehigh and a new one in Richmond, including liquid bulk tankers (e.g. LNG); and the need to dredge the river to 15.5 metres on Dec. 4, 2012. Secondly the more conservative members in the Liberal Caucus appear to have gained control in the 2013 election.

On Nov 5, 2015 Todd Stone admitted that they did not yet have a business case for a bridge, Now the reason is clear. It appears that the province changed their plans to permit the industrialization of the Fraser River by Port Metro Vancouver. They did not have a business plan for a bridge because the business case was for twinning the tunnel and providing Rapid Bus. …

Recommendation:

That the City of Richmond request that the Provincial Government provide copies of all reports and studies – including but not limited to business plans, feasibility studies, technical studies, seismic studies, and/or environmental impact studies – that relate to the original plan to twin the George Massey Tunnel and/or provide Rapid Bus service that were considered during the period from 2006 to 2008; and that if necessary, that the foregoing request be made as an official Freedom of Information request.

The report attracted no attention at all from the Richmond News, but a great deal of media attention is being paid to the Metro Vancouver decision to ask for more time to consider the proposal.

Michael Mortensen and others think this latest post from Stephen Rees must be posted on posted on Price Tags:

.

Do go read it. Lots of good documentation. But I’m going to give the punch line away.

It seems to me that we are repeating the same pattern we saw with the Gateway. The arguments to justify the expansion of the freeways – and the building of the South Fraser Perimeter Road – were always about trucks. But the real agenda is to encourage the typical pattern of suburban sprawl that the RGS was supposed to deter.

Let public in on tunnel alternative

.

As the son of the late George Massey after whom the George Massey Tunnel was named, I cannot allow our provincial government to mislead the public into believing we needed to build a high level bridge.

A tunnel makes more sense in the sandy soil conditions of the area. TEC Tunnel Engineering Consultants in Amersfoort, the Netherlands, met with the Department of Transportation in Victoria in 2014 and made a presentation on immersed tunnels and the suitability of this technology for the George Massey Tunnel Replacement project. They never heard back and the public never got an opportunity to review their proposal.

Is it because the B.C. government chose to ignore an alternative that might deter from their ability to industrialize the whole of the Lower Fraser River and benefit Port Metro Vancouver at the expense of the people and the ecosystem of the wetlands that sustains fish and wildfowl? The public deserves better.